get_crypto_risk

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses the financial cost of $0.02 USDC, which is a key behavioral trait in the absence of annotations. However, it does not explain what 'cooldown context' means or any potential side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence provides value without unnecessary fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns (risk state and cooldown context), cost, and usage context. Missing details like authentication or rate limits are not critical for a context-only tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters exist, so the input schema provides 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Describes the tool as providing 'current market risk state and cooldown context' for Kronos decisions, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_crypto_decision or get_crypto_forecast. The description explicitly states it is 'not a standalone trading command,' reinforcing its specific role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states the tool is 'useful as supporting context, not a standalone trading command,' providing clear guidance on when to use it. Also mentions the cost ($0.02 USDC), helping the agent decide if it's worth invoking.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.